Conspiracy or incompetence? Either way, it’s not a case of open defiance i.e. the president announcing at a rally or in an interview that he’s above the law.
Second article:
Tl/dr: that’s an editorial making legal arguments, not a court decision stating that the proposed EO would in fact be unconstitutional. What you’re supposed to do then is take the case to court. Did they?
Again, there’s no declaration of executive supremacy.
Third article:
(Sound familiar?)
Tl/dr: he thought he could get away with it, but it turned out he couldn’t, and he accepted the court’s authority.
You still haven’t told us what Americans are supposed to do if the executive actually does declare itself above the law.
Says the man who started this exchange by complaining about an utterance.
The question, which you’re so relentlessly avoiding, is what are Americans supposed to do if the executive declares itself above the law? Let me know when you come up with something.
I find this an interesting question. I don’t recall you chiming in to this topic when Obama used EO to announce DACA, after repeatedly saying he didn’t have the power to do exactly that.
What Americans do, when the executive branch extends itself beyond the law is to take it to the courts, which the Democrats have on numerous occasions with Trump decisions like the travel ban and a judge from Hawaii jumping in to declare such an EO unlawful.
However back to DACA, which Trump had previously said he thought was an action beyond the purview of the Executive branch and should be resolved in the Legislative branch so refused to continue the program. Which was also in the face of threats of numerous lawsuits to challenge the authority of the President to unilaterally declare DACA, I think its understandable Trump wouldn’t want to defend such an action in courts, especially he agrees it was beyond the authority of the Presidency to create DACA.
Which was challenged by the judicial branch (apparently according to Democrat logic, Trump has no right to end a questionable EO enacted by his predecessor) and is a case now working it’s way up to the SCOTUS and I’m pretty sure they will vote that Trump is within his rights to rescind a program that was started by EO by a previous administration. How could they not?
When I take a different course, it’s usually to celebrate the absurdity of someone else’s. I do enjoy my daily dose of Rowland, no joke.
To clarify, though, I wasn’t talking about executive “overreach” but about openly and unambiguously giving the finger to the separation of powers.
For starters, imagine Barry in 2008 or 2012 saying white judges should recuse themselves from cases involving me because they’re biased (as Donnie said about Hispanic judges).
That can be dismissed as all bark and no bite, but if a president starts out that way, people will naturally wonder how far he’s planning to go.
Ok, you bring up a fair point, a president, or in this case a candidate for president (at the time) weighing in on court cases.
But we don’t need to imagine, because Obama did that on numerous occasions. Remember “if I had a son” Trayvon Martin? Not a smidgen of wrongdoing in the IRS targeting conservatives? That Clinton was careless setting up an email server but lacked intent to do harm, an almost exact wording the FBI would would use in their letter framed months ahead of concluding their “matter”?
We don’t need to imagine how far the Obama administration would go, 7 years later and despite using executive privilege to hide documents from congress relating to Fast and Furious, where thousands of guns were delivered to drug cartels in the hope of tracking the guns and capturing the cartel leaders, the same documents Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress for withholding are only now being delivered to congress.
I suspect in the following months, we will hear a lot more how Obama politicized the top of the DOJ/FBI/CIA/IRS, but interesting it’s the Democrats who seem more concerned with what would happen if Trump theoretically did any of these things and which are becoming more apparent that the Democrats have been actually doing for years. The list is getting longer and longer, blocking IG from getting information to conduct their job, creating divisions which are outside of regulation.
I don’t put Barry’s Trayvon comment and this is exactly what you need to do in the same category. You can read a hint into it if you want, and you can read a hint into Lizzie’s announcement just before a referendum if you want, but there’s no outright I’m the head of state so do what I say dictation.
But we don’t need to imagine, because Obama did that on numerous occasions. Remember “if I had a son” Trayvon Martin? Not a smidgen of wrongdoing in the IRS targeting conservatives? That Clinton was careless setting up an email server but lacked intent to do harm, an almost exact wording the FBI would would use in their letter framed months ahead of concluding their “matter”?
Not sure who Lizzie is or what referendum you are talking of. But don’t get me wrong, I hear what you are saying.
Trump not so long ago tweeted how Andrew McCabe was trying to run the clock out before getting fired.
I think we can all agree some of Trump’s tweets and what he says along with how he says it do more damage to him than help. That particular tweet would be a good example, even if we see the IG has found concrete evidence which he passed on to the FBI Ethics Office who then recommended firing McCabe, which Sessions then did. All of which can be claimed to be above board.
But that tweet give the opposition the opportunity to claim Trump was telling Sessions to fire McCabe. Trump may be wise to take a page from Obama’s play book and play his cards closer to his chest, but then again thats part of the reason people like him.
Exactly what we’ve always done. Laugh it off until they actually do something about it, then take up arms against them. Ask George III. This is how the first two amendments complement each other.
But the gun grabbers want it both ways. That’s my point. Never let them have it both ways. When the other guy gets to have it both ways, it’s by putting you in a no-win situation. Screw that.
And they also want to hurt people who say things they don’t like. But that’s another topic. As long as all they have is their fists, no biggie.
Who wants it both ways? The people who say yes we support the 2nd Amendment, but we should raise the minimum age to 21 and not take orders from the NRA and are Dems, or the people who say exactly the same thing and are Reps?
Or the member of the forum who says never let them have it both ways and then says as long as all they have is their fists, no biggie?
A 17-year-old shooter is dead and two other students remain in the hospital after a shooting at Great Mills High School in St. Mary’s County in Maryland, according to the sheriff’s office.
Seventeen-year-old Austin Wyatt Rollins fired at a female student in a hallway around 7:55 a.m. Tuesday morning, St. Mary’s County Sheriff Tim Cameron said. Another male student was also hit during the shooting.
During the shooting, an armed school resources officer reacted and exchanged shots with the shooter, Sheriff Cameron added. Officials stated that it it took less than a minute from the time the shooter opened fired to when the school resource officer opened fire.
Guess they would prefer to push for a “solution”, that will probably never get passed in Law.
This School , whilst the short-term fix may not be appealing, actually prevented Children from being killed. That is the priority for now…but lets fight to ban XYZ and argue that it is the only solution . Sigh. I hate guns but i hate people who are willing to let this carry on just to keep to the agenda.
It was not when i checked but may be now. Let us wait and see how things pan out then.
I was talking about MSM reporting , not what individuals are reading. Two different things.
